Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Denies Patent on Part-Human Hybrid

jimkski wrote to mention a Boston Globe story involving the refusal of a patent claim on a genetically engineered creature. From the article: "A New York scientist's seven-year effort to win a patent on a laboratory-conceived creature that is part human and part animal ended in failure Friday, closing a historic and somewhat ghoulish chapter in U.S. intellectual property law."

15 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Wow - you had me at "US denies patent". by MrRTFM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even better, he bascially applied for it, hoping to set a precendent to stop others patenting living creatures.

    Nice to see - my faith in the Patent system has raised slightly from 'completely hopeless' to 'mostly hopeless'

    --
    You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    1. Re:Wow - you had me at "US denies patent". by LucidBeast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article rises an interesting question though. When do we cross over to the unpatentable? If we keep adding human genes to a mouse for what ever purpose, does the mouse eventually cross that line? I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of patented animals that contain human genes. I don't know if there are any that contain many human genes, but I would imagine that for some purposes that would be desirable. Of course there are about 40k genes in humans (last count I remember) so getting to a significant percentage is a long shot.

    2. Re:Wow - you had me at "US denies patent". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Nice to see - my faith in the Patent system has raised slightly from 'completely hopeless' to 'mostly hopeless'"

      Funny, my opinion went from 'harmless' tp 'mostly harmless'.

  2. He would have won.. by EvilCabbage · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. if he'd hired Disneys lawyers.

  3. How about part tree and part plant? by Eunuch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Humans are a subset of animals. Get it? It looks the article actually recognizes this, which is refreshing but rare. It's hard to even have a talk about important issues such as consciousness and genetics when we can't get even get passed a basic fact.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  4. I'd be happy about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But aren't a huge number of the alleles in the human genome patented already? It seems like this was done not because of a reasonable understanding on the part of the patent office that living creatures shouldn't be patentable, but purely because of the grossout factor. That's not a step forward.

  5. Re:dare I say it? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nah, this is more likely because of the republican administration and the likely implication of granting this patent.

    What? A bunch of human-monkey hybrids that will certainly vote Democrat?!

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  6. Inadequate buyoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, he didn't own a multi-billion dollar corporation that could pay off the right people.

  7. Hopefully this will be a tipping point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A patent application was denied! Wow! That is news!

  8. what...?? by to_kallon · · Score: 5, Funny

    creature that is part human and part animal
    wow, talk about prior art.....

    --


    The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
    -Oscar Wilde
  9. Re:DAMN! by metlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    That way I could retire with relative ease.

    That's the *worst* pun I've ever heard. :-|

  10. Re:dare I say it? by budgenator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no I think the implication is that the pressure from the whacko-religious near-terrorist christian extremists would become to much to bear if the governament started patenting human-animal chimeras. It would errode the sacredicity of humanity by forcing them to move from their present all-or-nothing view humans, i.e. that thing god created first to an actual definition that would stand muster in a secular legal scope.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  11. between man and chimpanzee is only 1.4% by xtermin8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That figure is out of context. There is a 1.4% difference in DNA. Genes are an abstraction of inheritable traits. Without knowing specifically which combinations of of DNA sequences produce specific inheritable traits, there is no way to calculate percentages.

  12. Re:Frightening by king-manic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do we have a right to play God?

    We're not playing god. We're playing "code monkey". The language just happens to be DNA and we're reverse engineering a set of programs doen by a vastly supurior coder... sorta like a VB programmer trying to understand and modify the vi source code.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  13. Re:dare I say it? by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I expect the Religious Right will end up getting steam-rolled over the genetic engineering issue"

    Well American bible thumpers have a multipart strategy for countering the hordes of 7.5 feet tall Chinese with the 220 IQ:

    - Nuclear weapons, lots of nuclear weapons, so if the good lord wont start the rapture they can give him(or her) a hand with an artificial one. The U.S. government is apparently starting work on two new warhead designs, in defiance of several efforts by Congress to stop it, one really big and one really small. If the Republican's hold power a little while longer its likely we will see them break the global test ban treaty and start firing off nukes again. The test ban will most likely land in the same dumper as the ABM treaty, and the Kyoto accords, and the Geneva conventions on treating prisoners, Geneve conventions on treating civilians in occupied countries, U.S laws against torture, U.S. laws on due process, and of course the Constitution.

    - Missile defense, it probably doesn't work but if it did it would keep the super intelligent Chinese from shooting back

    - Stamp out birth control and abortion. Most religions do everything in their power to maximize population growth to increase the size of their flock, even if it does mean massive overpopulation. The Chinese are, by contrast aggressively trying to control population growth so maybe the bible thumpers, given enough time can out breed and out number them. There will be irony if in the next big war there will be a billion American soldiers, praising Jesus, as they use human waves to overwhelm the tiny Chinese Army, big and intelligent though they may be.

    If the Chinese do all develop 220 IQ's there is a chance they might all become extremely enlightened and liberal. That means they will probably unilaterally disarm, and will be reluctant to start a war.

    In this area low IQ Americans have a huge advantage. They will bankrupt their country buying weapons, and more weapons, and they are willing to use them at a drop of a hat.

    I guess I'm saying is its possible geneticly engineering, super intelligent Chinese might be sitting ducks for low IQ, bigoted, hate filled, bible thumping Americans, who'll push the button in the name of Jesus.

    --
    @de_machina